Subject: Digest for the period 5/2/2005 - 5/3/2005 Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 01:02:20 -0400 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Appreciation of beer (Francisco Jones) 2. BJCP Election results (Ed Westemeier) 3. Scoresheets (Jeffrey Pinhey) 4. RE: Horrible scoresheets (Bob Paolino) 5. slack scoresheets . . . (Big) 6. Horrible Score sheets (Mark McAndrews) 7. Horrible scoresheets (Ted Hausotter) 8. Real beer (MeadGuild`at`aol.com) 9. Guinness here vs there (MeadGuild`at`aol.com) 10. Beer Judge Compensation (MeadGuild`at`aol.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Francisco Jones Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 23:57:17 -0500 Subject: Appreciation of beer How about: "... appreciation of FINE beer..."? This one is just vague enough to cover all bases. "Fine" covers craft/homebrews in the sense of good/flavorful beers, and it covers mega-beer in the sense of "very well crafted". Francisco Jones Kankakee, IL ~'~ VVvV vVv fj ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Westemeier Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: BJCP Election results The BJCP is pleased to announce the results of the recent election in the Mid-Atlantic region. Gordon Strong received 109 votes, and Steve Marler received 33 votes. Gordon will be the new BJCP Regional Representative for the Mid-Atlantic region, and a voting member of the BJCP Board of Directors. Although not binding as elections are, the results of the two preference polls conducted in other regions are also worth reporting. In the Midwest region, Joe Formanek received 34 votes, and Scott Dennis received 9 votes. In the West region, Dave Sapsis received 20 votes, and Kevin Pratt received 5 votes. The current board will now appoint a member in each of these two regions to serve the upcoming term. We would like to thank everyone who took the time to cast a ballot. Ed Westemeier and Jamil Zainasheff BJCP Election Committee ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeffrey Pinhey Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 08:23:37 -0300 Subject: Scoresheets Those scoresheet examples are not acceptable, but as has been pointed out, someone accepted them. A couple of points: 1. Denis B. suggests that that level of effort might be more common to see with very low scoring beers. This is one of my "hot buttons" as I think that beers entered in a BJCP judged competition that have problems probably deserve more of my time than the(rare) 45 point beer. If I can perhaps offer some idea or feedback to the brewer so that his next beer scores in the 30's or 40's, then I believe I have really accomplished something. Spending the time (which is often limited by organizers) to write flowery quotable quotes about how good a good beer is is, comparatively, a waste of time. (IMO) I have had other judges waiting a bit impatiently for me to finish writing about a bad beer, asking why bother about that infected one. The ability to offer feedback on brewing the beer better next time is what should separate a BJCP judge from a pro brewer/guest judge who may only be able to, or willing to, comment on the style adherence and quality of the better brews. 2. As suggested above, the only times I have felt that I did not get as many words on paper as I wanted were cases where there were either not enough judges, or not enough time to address each beer in a complete manner. One competition (one of the MCAB finals) there was an assumption at the table, and in the room, that if the beers had gotten this far, they were all good, and just rank them. I really did not feel I was given enough time to provide acceptable feedback before another flight landed on the table. For me, personally, if I had entered a beer that had gotten to an MCAB final round, I would really want to know why it did poorly once there. This would be more important in an MCAB as some of the entries would not be the same batch as that which got them there. 3. An allowance can be made, I think, for Best of Show rounds, where the scoresheets from in-class flights are going back to a brewer. The BOS judging can be quite subjective, so perhaps one's time is better spent with being fair as to the order, and winner. Still, if time is allotted, as a judge, why not offer feedback? Comments as to the fit to style tend to be quite self explanatory in that stage of a competiton. That is, if the organizer plans to even return the BOS round sheets to the brewers. Jeff Pinhey, BJCP National Beer Judge ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bob Paolino Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:34:45 -0400 Subject: RE: Horrible scoresheets [Lots of stuff snipped, and Ed's message (and much of the entire digest) not re-quoted for the gazillionth time.] There's certainly no arguing that those two scoresheets weren't horribly incomplete and the entrant deserved a more detailed evaluation, so I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon with yet another call to reprimand the judges, threaten to withhold points, or boot them out of the program. As unpopular a position as this might end up being, I'm going to suggest--without excusing what appears to be a poor effort to evaluate a beer--trying to see another side to it. It might be too late to find out for this competition, but were the scoresheets on this beer representative of all the beers these two judges evaluated, or is it one really bad exception and the other sheets acceptable? Could this beer have been the last one in a flight and the judges being rushed to finish up such that they didn't think they had time to write anything more? It's still hard to imagine that they couldn't have written in at least a few more observations before the table got cleared away, but.... I'm sure others could think of other possible explanations. Sure, send them a letter expressing concern that entrants be given a more complete evaluation, but in the absence of any known problems from other events, don't overreact. As for posting sample scoresheets, I think posting both really bad ones _and_ exceptionally good ones for judges to see could be a good educational exercise. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino "Are Canadians just Americans who carry hockey sticks instead of guns, or is there more to it than that?" --"This Canadian Existence" Wisconsin Public Radio ( ) ASCII ribbon campaign X against HTML e-mail: / \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages! A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. Q: Why is top-posting frowned upon? ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Big Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 07:57:53 -0700 Subject: slack scoresheets . . . ---------- i (infrequently) get my score sheet handed back to me because i added incorrectly. i wonder what happened to the steward who let a sheet through that not only had no comments but had no scores ? something else is going on. the totals were high enough that the other judges must've coerced these guys into "going along". i suspect we know less about the situation(s) than we even suspect . . . Big http://www.bjcp.org/horrible.html ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark McAndrews Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:38:33 -0500 Subject: Horrible Score sheets This past weekend I judged at the NHC First Round Midwest Region (ably run by the Minnesota Homebrewers Association and the St. Paul Homebrewers Club). The example scoresheets were blown up to poster size and posted on the wall with bright red lettering across them stating 'Don't Be Like These Guys'. The identity of the judges was obscured, but the competition was not. These scoresheets were the topic of several discussions over the course of the weekend. A few observations from those conversations: These are from a very large competition. Only having 2 judges on a beer is a clue that they may have been short on judges. If these guys were working on their 6th flight of the day, it was getting late, and there was another flight to go yet I can understand the urge to slam through things to just be done with it. A judge should refuse to participate if they think they aren't up to it, but if your club is hosting there is some pressure to help carry the load. The legibility and spelling of the few words on the sheets indicate these guys may have spent too long in the hospitality suite through the day. Several posters have suggested penalizing the organizer as too severe. I'm not sure yet. If the organizer failed to recruit the judges required for their competition is that the judges fault or the organizers? The judge is certainly culpable, the organizer is as well because they are ultimately responsible for what happens in their competition. The BJCP doesn't allow the organizer any points if they take more than 21 days to complete their paperwork. How does this compare to being late w/ paperwork? >From the # of judging points awarded and the # of entries in the competition the BJCP should be able to determine if there were obvious staffing shortages at the competition. Given the limits on points per day that may not be conclusive. I'd suggest the organizer and judges involved be asked to respond and given a reasonable time to do so (10-20 days). Post their responses (perhaps anonymously). If they fail to respond, simply post the scoresheets unredacted. The BJCP posts the competitions that are late in recording points, while that has some administrative reasons as well, the publication of that info serves as somewhat of a sanction. I'd expect the competition to refund the entry fee for this entry and reasonable shipping costs, too. Suggestions to monitor a judge for some period are unworkable, IMO. The BJCP is a volunteer run organization and I'd rather see volunteers doing more important things than being scoresheet parole officers. Find out what lead to such awful scoresheets before determining the penalty. ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ted Hausotter Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 12:32:07 -0700 Subject: Horrible scoresheets As a past contest organizer, there are a lot of demands on your time. Looking at 300 sets of scoresheets is not something you are going to do AND give the scoresheets back the same day. At the Slurp and Burp, we give these back to the entrants the same day so they can use the feedback to enter the Nationals. The contest secratary will look at them and pull out the unusual, not much info, low scores ect. If these are found, as an organizer the choices are to rejudge them or give back the entry fee. This gets more complicated if there is a split flight and judge off has already occured. As the organizer, I expect a BJCP member to do better than a non member. A national and higher judge should be able to judge what ever is put in front of them. A Certified judge should do almost as well. Are you keeping up as judges? Doing your homework, drinking different beer styles and studing the beers? The day of a contest, the organizer has a judge pool to assign from. Sometimes the requirement to judge a style is that YOU SHOW UP. An example of this is the first round of the nationals in Portland this year. About 20 judges showed up. We had more than this 8 years ago when I started judging and in between then at least 6 new crops of judges. Where were the judges? Luckily Portland and Seattle split the beer so we got most of the way through it. The organizer has to scramble and do some flights after work during the week. While we can complain at bad scoresheets, how about turning out for a competition so there can be a scoresheet. As an entrant, why arn't there 3 BJCP judges per table. Most contests I enter have 1 and usually only 2 judges per table. Should the organizers be the BJCP police? Sounds like the law in the Old West, "Pilgrim you can't judge in my town, go over to Dodge and judge." Might work for a contest, but not as a whole. John Tull said he likes to give judges a chance to do a better job, I applaud you John. We need to give judges a chance to get better. Most of us do, I know I improved a lot as I gained experience. In reading the scoresheets I get back, I know many other judges also improved. The bad ones are still bad. Bad score sheets are bad for our hobby. Something needs to be done about it. The suggestion of a letter to the judge and cc'ed to the contest organizer is a good one. However, it does not solve the problem, we now have a judge that knows he lacking but does't know how to fix it. The new continuing education will help (should be unveiled soon), but they need to take the classes and you need to organize them. Right now, there is no judging requirement. It is Once in never out. Should a judge be put on inactive status where they lose their rank untill they get recertified? (now I believe they just go inactive) When is a judge no longer a judge? If I don't judge beer in 6 months I'm still a judge, how about 1 or 2 years or after I go inactive? Should we have a minimum required? Naturally some judges will not be able to make it to more than 1 per year or even every 2 years, so we can't be to harsh on our requirements. Naturally, in any group there are the less than proficient. We need to work with them as head judges, contest organizers ect to help them. Any action from the BJCP police (if we add them) can be difficult to keep fair and the organization will need to be careful. Ted Hausotter Master Beer Judge Baker City, OR ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MeadGuild`at`aol.com Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 17:50:59 EDT Subject: Real beer Ed Westemeier  wrote (in part): > Tom Schmidlin wrote: >> what's not real beer?  It is still unclear to me if this is the CAMRA sense >> of the word, or is a dis against mass-produced swill. > A fair question. If it were the former, then we would be restricting > ourselves to an extremely tiny subset of the world's output of beer. > That would be silly. > > f it were the latter, then we would be announcing that we're the > experts, but we're going to ignore 90% of the world's output of beer. > That would be equally silly. > Perhaps it would be more easily understandable if we changed "real" to > "better" or some equivalent word. > .... > So, since I didn't write that line, I'll just venture a personal guess > at its meaning. Take the phrases in question, and divide it into parts: > > "promote beer literacy" involves developing an understanding of the > brewing process, beer styles, and the surrounding technologies > (packaging, dispensing, serving, etc.) and communicating that knowledge > more widely, to the general beer drinking public. > > "appreciation of real beer" involves (among other things) recognizing > the inherent superiority of "craft beer" (both home brewed and > commercially brewed) over the mass market products. It also involves > communicating and spreading the pleasure associated with the "better" > beer. ........ First, that was an excellent post. The purpose of the BJCP is to certify and rank judges for beer competitions and to insure these judges have a comprehensive understanding of beer styles, the brewing process, the surrounding technologies, and the communication skills to transfer their understanding to both brew show competitors and the general public. Having taken Ed's post and turned it into a mission statement, I respectfully decline to serve on any mission statement committee. I have served on four and all four lacked value. Dick --- Richard D. Adams Retired Professor of Accounting Moderator: misc.taxes.moderated ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MeadGuild`at`aol.com Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 18:20:11 EDT Subject: Guinness here vs there I was near the end of my third childhood when I first tasted Guiness. Beer on tap was ten cents a glass. So you ordered three Reingolds, a bottle of Guiness, and an empty glass. The Guiness made the Reingold palable. Guiness has always seemed too dry to me. But I was in Edinburgh in '94 watching a ManU-Crystal Place football game in a pub. I took CP +2-1/2 goals. He was a big ManU fan. The bet was 2 pounds and a bottle of Guiness. I did win and the Guiness was really good. When I got home, I had a Guiness draught. It was good, but different. The four pack I bought still has a two bottles sitting in the cabinet. I will drink them soon as my latest Mead tastes like a witch's brew and my Brown Ale is a week away from being drinkable. The bottled Guiness here is not the same. Guiness should contract with Coors. That way Coors would have two products that register above zero: Killians and Guiness. I like their politics, but Coors ain't beer. Dick -- Richard D. Adams Retired Professor of Accounting Moderator: misc.taxes.moderated ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MeadGuild`at`aol.com Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 18:27:55 EDT Subject: Beer Judge Compensation It seems to me that considering the high level of pay and compensation for expenses, anyone who judges an AHA competition should receive a free membership in the AHA for the following calendar year. Does that seem like excessive compensation to anyone? Dick -- Richard D. Adams Retired Professor of Accounting Moderator: misc.taxes.moderated ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Manage your subscription online: http://synchro.com/judge * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * **********************************************************************